1) The screencaps show very little detail2) "Dan Glickman Forum" from the screencaps turn up nothing in Google.3) The line provided http://www.mpaa.org/blog_default.asp doesn't exist, isn't found in google OR the wayback machine and the home page back in September 06 looks very much like it does today - I don't find any obvious links to this.

If the MPAA accuses me of stealing files they had better produce some evidence and I damn well expect (not that they desterve it) that evidence has to be provided on this.

Of course my Google skills might not be up to snuff - but come on community, find the evidence while it still exists - if it did at all.

I have a strange question: why is the article he supposedly took a screenshot from dated September 29th, 2006, but the calendar for the archive of posts is February 2007? I thought perhaps the calendar in this software might display the current month regardless of which post you're reading, but if you look at this link to the author of the programme's own site, here [hostforest.co.uk], you'll see that the calendar does indeed change with the post you're reading. Which means the article on the MPAA blog is supposedly from over 3 months ago but the calendar is showing this month. Either the screencap is faked, the web admin who set up the software doesn't know what the fuck he's doing, or the software needs work. There's also no mention of the blog ever being there in Google or the Internet Archive despite the former surely having a copy and the latter already having an index of tens of thousands of pages from the MPAA site, and not a single one of them matching a search for this blog. Maybe the guy just wants to do some viral marketing, maybe he supports the MPAA philosophically and wants a bunch of overhyped, gullible nerds to get upset so he can make them look foolish later. Or maybe it is legitimate and he just happens to have stumbled upon the site, the link just happens to be taken down, and all mention of it from the face of the Internet has disappeared forever. That seems really likely.

I think you are getting slightly confused, the calendar isn't there to access archive posts but to view events that the blog owner has entered in to the system and the calendar operates independantly of which ever page is being browsed. When you are viewing the events for a given date, such as you have linked to, the calendar will change to show that month. If you are just browsing the site it will show the current month/year by default.
If you look at my update on the site (http://www.patrickrobin.co.uk/default.asp?Display =5) you will see why the MPAA blog is no longer visible.

After doing some similar research, I came to the conclusion it is either a clever marketing ploy by blog author, or more likely some hidden prototype site their web development team was using and as it was never linked from main page, it was never found by any spiders (yet referrers to authors site showed up in his logs, which is exactly how he found out about it), Turns out the latter is the case [patrickrobin.co.uk]

After doing some similar research, I came to the conclusion it is either a clever marketing ploy by blog author, or more likely some hidden prototype site their web development team was using and as it was never linked from main page, it was never found by any spiders (yet referrers to authors site showed up in his logs, which is exactly how he found out about it), Turns out the latter is the case

Yeah, well they had it set up on a public-facing web server, accessible by anyone. You don't test software on a public server. Given that the MPAA is not exactly known for being a forgiving bunch, I don't think their excuses amount to much. If they had some public goodwill, I could see giving them a pass on it, but they seem to feel so strongly about copyright infringement that it just wouldn't seem right to let them off on this. I'm sure they would agree, right? If copyright infringement is so terrible, surely they should be facing a really hefty fine here, right? Maybe some jail time? If they're going to insist on strict enforcement, then they had better get their own affairs and people under some seriously tight control too.

That idea reminds me of the commercials on DVDs saying that piracy supports organised crime. Well based upon the actual historical track record and organised crimes well known willingness and even desire to invest in the RIAA and the MPA members media, after all, "sex, drugs and rock and roll" or "the casting couch" or the media industries well known addiction to cocaine etc, the opposite is far more likely to be true.

So the actual reality is closer to this idea, that if you really want to hurt organised crime, you a far more morally compelled to pirate media and distribute it for free and as a result, cut off a substantial portion of their income.

As a bonus, just think of all the 'artists' (well at least in their own minds) you will be saving from a life of drunken, drugged up depravity;-) (instead they will look forward to long healthy life as food service professionals and as a double plus, we get to avoid the endlessly monotonous exposure to their aberrant behaviour).

I'm the creator of Forets Blog and, obviously, the author of this article so its only right that I respond to your queries.

1) The screenshots show as much detail as possible, I can/could only view the output of my system and not the source.2/3) I came across the blog through my website referals when they accessed the RSS feed from my site. The site was live and online but I'm unsure whether it was ever linked to or if it was spidered by google, but it was on a live web server that was accessable by any member of the public. It has been removed from their web server since the article was written after some dialogue between myself and the MPAA.

I have been in communication with Paul Egge and Richard Kroon (Director of Application Development) at the MPAA and have copies of all of the emails that were sent.

You're going to hear this a lot, and I wish to add my voice to the growing chorus:

Sue the motherfuckers! Get a lawyer and sue the shit out of them! Give them a taste of their own medicine. They NEED to be on the receiving end of their own bullshit.Their guilt is manifest by the fact that they've removed the work in question from their website. If it wasn't a problem, they wouldn't have felt the need to do so.

Besides, he could go after full penalties now, which is significantly more than 150 pounds. Sure, it's nothing to the MPAA, but still, it doesn't look good that they do so much to enforce IP then they lose in court for similar violations

Oh if that's how the RIAA (and I imagine MPAA) worked getting sued them would be a hardship rather then simply ridiculous. No, the MPAA has to pay 100 million dollars for every page they have that lacks the link (so if they've made 10 blog posts, that's at least 10 pages).

Don't worry, after they pay for the Forest Blog software, they'll... um... they won't be able to buy a corporate lunch. Not bankruptcy I suppose, but something.

Note, at present exchange rate, the permision to remove the links is $97.

No no no. It has nothing to do with the cost of the albu^H^H^H^Hsoftware. You see, since they didn't pay initially, they should have had a link. And if they had placed a link, then there would have been more users of Forest Blog, and thus they are liable for each user who did not use Forest Blog because they were missing the link. Therefore their liability should be $97 times everyone who has visited mpaa.org, and thus was a lost customer, plus punitive damages of $150,000 per page that should have had a link.

As much as I'd love to see the MPAA get nailed for this, they won't. They don't play by the same rules one of us would be forced to play by if we were nailed for something. They will be liable for nothing.

Corporate criminals are clever enough to distance themselves from all crimes they oversee. They're going to release a statement about how this page was handled by some lowly contractor, who takes all fault, they removed it as soon as it was found, and walk away clean.

* No Web links were ever provided to the blog.
* The blog was never assigned a domain name.
* The blog was never advertised to the public in any way.
* The material on the server was a proof of concept awaiting approval to move into production.
* The blog was only ever used for testing purposes.
* Should we have decided to make the move to production, then we would have paid the 25 Pounds that would have authorized us to run a version of the blog without the logos and links.

Should we have decided to make the move to production, then we would have paid the 25 Pounds that would have authorized us to run a version of the blog without the logos and links.

So, presumably, that means it's fine for me to download films created by MPAA members as long as I say I'll buy the DVD if I like them?

First of all, bad choice of words on the title, I actually meant the claim against MPAA is sorta legit. But I'll bite and give you my thoughts on this. A better analogy would be "its ok to download films to watch a first few minutes and then say if I want to watch it, I would buy the dvd."

The actual point of the software is to be used by large number of people to read/respond to postings - this was not done in this case, just an internal mock up of a site (which of course should not have been posted on a public website, but still).

And despite my dislike of all things with AA in the title (sorry AAA, aardvarks) and given our collective thirst for revenge against THIS *AA, it does not seem to be THAT outlandish to use the software in this way, and even the author of said software agreed.

1. No html links were ever pointed to my music2. My music was never assigned a domain name3. The music was never advertised to the public in any way (only privately)4. The music in the file sharing program was a proof of concept and never moved into production5. The music in the file sharing program was only used for testing purposes6. Should I have decided to make the move to production, then I would have paid the appropiate royalty fees

If as the MPAA says there were never any Web links to the blog, then how did the author of the software stumble upon it? No Web links equals no search engine listings equals effective invisibility to the outside world.

If as the MPAA says there were never any Web links to the blog, then how did the author of the software stumble upon it? No Web links equals no search engine listings equals effective invisibility to the outside world.

The MPAA claim on this point is pretty easily verifiable via Google and Wayback machine. The way the author found out is via referrer logs on his own server, I guess the software had some hardcoded links. This is explained in the article BTW.

This is not the first time the MPAA has been caught pirating the copyrighted works of others. They got caught making and distributing copies of This Film Is Not Yet Rated [imdb.com] without permission (and after they claimed they did not make any copies).

This crowd has been violating other peoples' "IP" since they moved out west. This little fact seems to go right over a certain moderator's [slashdot.org] head. It should be no surprise that the law doesn't apply to everybody.

I don't know why your post is modded as "informative," because you haven't provided any information about the incident to which you are referring. Maybe if I post that the MPAA were caught red-handed drowning kittens and leaving the toilet seat up I can be modded "informative" too?

I don't know why your post is modded as "informative," because you haven't provided any information about the incident to which you are referring.

Should you happen to rent or buy This Film Is Not Yet Rated [netflix.com] the "incident" discussed in-thread is detailed during the audio commentary (by the film's director and producer) and again within a deleted scene (the phone call from an MPAA lawyer that informed the director of unauthorized copying was filmed, though the MPAA's half of the conversation was not directly recorded).

In a nutshell, the director had submitted the film to the MPAA for ratings review and was told that no one other than the raters would view the tape provided. He was also told that no copies would be made of the supplied materials. It came to pass that members of the MPAA admitted to not only screening the film for several non-raters but also to making at least one complete (and unauthorized) copy of the supplied tape.

I suspect you are trolling, but I'll reply anyway.
This is about the MPAA showing their own hypocrisy in regard to copright.
If anything, this whole incident would be proof that copyright is dying in the digital world.

Thats not the issue really. The issue is that strict copyright law is basically unenforcable. This isn't 10 rich guys and 30 lawers going, "Muwhahaha", this is some web team figuring that they're no different from the thousands of other coders like us that break the occasional license unbeknownst to our bosses.

If anything, this is like the futility to pointing out that MPAA or RIAA heads' family members pirate content. At the end of the day, what are people against the copyright lobby fighting for? Some say downright incorrect prosecution, which obviously happens, but underneath it all, its the result of a lack leniancy and less strict laws. The only reason that breaking a "Linkware" license is news is because of it highlites that copyright laws are, in the end, only selectively enforced, not because of some organizational hypocricy. The hypocricy basically is unintentional, and to me, thats really what the problem is. Its not some blatent flogging, its just the old adage of the impractibility of ensuring that those around you practise what you preach. Getting onto that soapbox and being adamant about how you live your life is in no way an argument against an organzation that is hypocritical for the very reason that it is not one single person but a large organization of people. Its like some company saying that j-walking in all cases, always, everytime, hurts their bottom line; it'd take you less than 10 minutes if you had full access to everyone at a company to spot apparent hypocricy, but that wouldn't be the time to point out, "Hey, *I* don't j-walk." Its not revelent, because at some point, the eagerness of enforcement is more relevant than the actual law.

The issue is that strict copyright law is basically unenforcable. This isn't 10 rich guys and 30 lawers going, "Muwhahaha", this is some web team figuring that they're no different from the thousands of other coders like us that break the occasional license unbeknownst to our bosses.

It's not that strict copyright law is unenforceable, it's the fact that the culture overwhelmingly looks at copyright as a minor violation.

Chicken, meet egg.I was ready to flame but have ultimately decided that its the same thing. Culture sees it as a minor violation because the current legal definition of copyright is unenforcable. Its a minor problem precisely because going after every violater leads to two conclusions: its rights granted by current copyright law are too strong, and most people know somebody that should be locked up for violating it.

Its pretty much the same thing. My original post was more about saying that if, as an individ

It's not that strict copyright law is unenforceable, it's the fact that the culture overwhelmingly looks at copyright as a minor violation.

In the age of digital copies, strict copyright law is unenforceable.

Regular theft leaves evidence behind - the stolen item is gone - you know you have been robbed. Stealing a copy of something leaves behind no evidence. If you do not know it has been stolen, you can not even begin to start looking for the thief.

Someone is likely to pipe in that there is evidence of theft - the stolen item/copy itself. Before that someone starts piping, ask yourself just how many crimes are investigated because the cops found a guy with stolen items versus how many are investigated because something went missing? I am going to SWAG and say at least 1:10,000 maybe even 1:100,000, which is about as good an example of unenforceable as you are going to get. Of course those 1 out of 10 thousand cases have about a 100% success rate, but that's only because the crimes are already solved by the time they are discovered.

Over and over.....copying is not stealing. It is copying. There is a difference. The powers that be LOVE when people call copying stealing. If I steal an object - you no longer have the object. If I copy an object, you still have the object. Copyright is a givernment granted monopoly so what I am doing in copying is ignoring your monopoly. What I actually do with that copy then defne the damage that potentially could occur to your income from that copy.

I grew up copying my friends albums on tapes. We all bought stuff, but no one bleated then about stealing. We called it sharing.

How many people out there are buying NOYTHING and only aquiring music via copying. Very few I would imagine.

It's actually really bizarre that they didn't pay even after the software's author emailed them to say "Hey, no fair, pay up." I mean, the MPAA represents an industry making billions of dollars a year... and they couldn't be bothered to cough up a measly 25 quid? The British pound may be one of the strongest currencies in the world, but twenty five of them ain't gonna break the MPAA's bank. I guarantee, the cost of this public relations snafu is gonna be way more than that.

I guarantee, the cost of this public relations snafu is gonna be way more than that.

I hate to burst your bubble, but email me in 6 months with the "I told you so" if you're right. This is the cost of doing business, and whatever flak they take from this will pale in comparison to financially ruining people who didn't even violate the law in the first place months ago. And those actions are taken under the "cost of doing business" reasoning to begin with. This is a really nit-picky kind of story if you're tr

Copyrights are unenforceable because most aren't obeying the law. If the speed limit is 55 and everyone goes 65 then the speed limit is unenforceable. People forget the copyright system largely worked up until home computers and the internet. It was the ease with which people could circumvent the law that changed things not the law itself.

This isn't 10 rich guys and 30 lawers going, "Muwhahaha", this is some web team figuring that they're no different from the thousands of other coders like us that break the occasional license unbeknownst to our bosses.

Astounding -- you knowingly expose your employer to legal liability by violating software licenses *and* you're a programmer? Did the whole "Free Software" thing that comes up on Slashdot every once in a while just sail right over your head or what?

In spite of the fact there is criminal legislation in place for copyright infringment, I expect the prosecutors will look the other way and declare it to be civil. This will just be another example of the double standard.

As a civil issue ( the only other legal avenue ), you can only hope to obtain justice through the courts. It will cost $1000's to get a judgment, perhaps $100,000's. There is no justice. All we have is persecution it would seem with the powerful pretty much doing whatever they like with impunity.

While its not fair, the question any prosecutor is going to ask is if spending the taxpayers money on this is a good idea. Of course, spending the taxpayers money prosecuting a person charged with a traffic incident is always considered a good idea because its cheap (usually) and meant to keep the sheep in line and paying the fines.

It's always fun to flood the MPAA with information about vicious acts of piracy.

I made sure to point out that not only did they infringe Forest Blog's copyright on every page view, they also stole advertising revenue from Forest Blog that would have been generated by the links that were removed from the MPAA's blog, causing at least as much financial harm as "stealing" copies of DVDs. I think the author probably has a reasonably strong civil claim to get that money back, which would hopefully pull in plen

Well, I must say I'm surprised;to after getting no response to my previous emails to the MPAA about their use of Forest Blog at the tail end of last year I got a result within five hours this time, unless they were just replying to the original email?

Anyway, thanks to Paul Egge and Richard Kroon the situation has now been resolved and they've removed Forest Blog from their web server.

Here's a section of the email I received from Richard who I think is the Director of Application Development ast the MPAA:

The material has been removed from our Web server.

* No Web links were ever provided to the blog.
* The blog was never assigned a domain name.
* The blog was never advertised to the public in any way.
* The material on the server was a proof of concept

If that is really their reponse, go ahead and substitute the word "Blog" with "Song", and throw it back at them. Maybe a very dim light will start to glow in their puny little minds.

Simply the fact that they went through the trouble of removing all the links and pictures tells me that this was a blatant attempt to scr*w the author out of his 25 Pounds. No-one goes through the trouble of doing this *ON A PUBLIC PRODUCTION WEBSERVER* just for testing.

How many of the targets of **AA action were afforded the opportunity to just say the same thing - "okay, sorry, I took it down, and it wasn't really meant for public consumption anyway, so we didn't do anything wrong", as opposed to being on the wrong end of a settlement demand?

I've concluded that the traditionalist forces and thinkers (read: MPAA, "follow the rules without question simply because they are the rules and everyone follows them") are evolved in such a way as to be unable to adapt once the traditions have been set. Such people simply need to die off more quickly now that the world is changing more quickly thus significantly reducing overall conflict. Rather horrifying, but an unavoidable conclusion.

One respondent to TFA suggested using the MPAA's own logic against them in court. Another suggested suing them in small claims court which is apparently much easier.

I submit that a software author is the same as a music CD author on an artistic level, perhaps more so since he does not have all the studio people to massage his work into something palatable.

If this artist is left on his own, he could make some cash in small claims court, or at least his 150 pound license fee [hostforest.co.uk] if he is not the litigous sort perhaps.

However I think this is also a very good opportunity for a big guns lawyers supplied perhaps by the EFF to find the paper where the MPAA writes down its killer legal strategies, and tear it up into tiny pieces, much as IBM is doing to SCO.

Equate software to music. Equate running softare or viewing a webpage as a "performance" in the legal sense. Use MPAA rules. Since the license costs about $100, calculate based on a 300% markup over a $35 average MPAA cd price. The sum will be punitive damages for theft, plus the 300% of what the MPAA sues for a song, plus the price of a "performance" multiplied by the number of visits to any of the blog's pages, based on the evidence of the MPAA's server logs which is must produce in court. Although this sounds over the top, it is simply using the same non-common-sensical strategy the MPAA is using in court, and I think a judge and jury might just see justice in that, or at least a reason not to throw the case out.

I think this ought to net a nice award for the author.

When you think about it, SCO has lasted this long because it is like a pathogen that bends the organism that is the legal system to its intent, far beyond the realm of common sense: If they don't show the infringing code it is common sense that they ought not be able to argue beyond that. The MPAA also also exhibits pathogenic qualities; it sues its own customers for such outrageous sums that it is not only beyond common sense, you have to wonder if their worth is based more on legal games than actually what their members sell. Unless we take advantage of such amazing incidents as this one and use their own weapons against them, it will just continue. We now have a chance to stir up some talk about whether the MPAA is also over the top, and what to do about it.

Another suggested suing them in small claims court which is apparently much easier.

It might be, if it were even possible. You can't sue anyone for copyright infringement in small claims court. There is exclusive federal jurisdiction for copyright suits, which means you'd have to go to federal district court.

Equate software to music. Equate running softare or viewing a webpage as a "performance" in the legal sense.

First, why? What possible advantage would that get you? Second, that is not likely to work. Merely running software could only infringe the reproduction and perhaps derivative rights, but there's an exception under 117 which may well be applicable here. Viewing a webpage is pretty much reproduction only. Having a globally-accessible webpage could be considered a performance or display (depending on precisely what it consisted of) but the present caselaw leans toward distribution instead. But it could be a moot point anyway; this author didn't write the web pages at issue, he wrote the program used to write the web pages. Portions of the page are based on his work, but probably not enough, given the whittling-away effects that a decent lawyer could achieve by using things like merger and scenes a faire, to matter much.

Since the license costs about $100, calculate based on a 300% markup over a $35 average MPAA cd price. The sum will be punitive damages for theft, plus the 300% of what the MPAA sues for a song, plus the price of a "performance" multiplied by the number of visits to any of the blog's pages, based on the evidence of the MPAA's server logs which is must produce in court. Although this sounds over the top, it is simply using the same non-common-sensical strategy the MPAA is using in court, and I think a judge and jury might just see justice in that, or at least a reason not to throw the case out.

No, it sounds utterly moronic.

There are two ways to compute damages for copyright infringement suits. First, you can get actual damages and profits. This means you get money in the amount you were actually damaged (in this case a paltry sum, since the software was available so cheaply) and also in the amount of net profit realized by the defendant that is attributable to the infringment (Gross profits, and profits that are attributable to other sources don't qualify). Since this is MPAA's blog, there are likely to be no awardable profits. Maybe $1 as a token sum.

The other way is statutory damages, which range from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed, and can go down to $200 or up to $150,000, depending on certain factors. But you have to have registered your work within a certain time limit in order to be eligible for this, and although I don't know either way, I'd be willing to bet that this work wasn't registered within the time limits. That means these damages would not be available.

RIAA does bother to register their works, however, which is why they routinely ask for the maximum amount of statutory damages ($150,000 per work infringed) which can add up if you infringe on a lot of works.

The crap you're talking about is just that; made up crap without a basis in reality. You don't get to arbitrarily name figures and multiply them by whatever. And there isn't even any such thing as punative damages in copyright, so that's out the window too. RIAA has a solid basis for what they do, even if you don't like it and don't understand it. You don't.

I think this ought to net a nice award for the author.

The reality is that this is probably not worth suing over; the author would probably lose money or at best break even. The best strategy is probably to write a nasty letter and then ignore it. A victory wouldn't be hard to get, but wouldn't be worthwhile either.

It might be, if it were even possible. You can't sue anyone for copyright infringement in small claims court.

But according to the MPAA itself, downloading films is stealing [google.com]. If downloading films is "stealing," it stands to reason that downloading software is "stealing" too. Wonder how that would hold up in small claims court.

P.S. Personally I think there is a major problem with the existence of an industry association like the MPAA and it being able to generate limitless lawsuits against customers on behalf of its members. I say Sony or Toshiba EMI ought to be required to do the suing, and see if they really have the stomach to do it and get caught out.

As it is now, the MPAA appears to exist for the sake of making lawsuits; its profit is based on the success of the lawsuits, and it is presumably paid by its members the startup cash needed to hire all those lawyers, to generate enough income to eventually make the lawsuit engine self-sustaining. Sounds like Microsoft/Baystar and SCO doesn't it? Or a recent RAM patent company?

When Sony embeds a rootkit they get clobbered with bad PR, and when EMI's copy protection sucks they get clobbered. Conversely, when EMI considers removing all copy protection they get even more, positive, PR. But when the MPAA sues soccer moms, the record companies seem to be wearing some kind of armor. All the bad PR sticks to their stalking horse, the MPAA. (Which like JASRAC in Japan has been the number one impediment to online distribution.)

I say the MPAA is a menace to the public and serves no purpose other than to make frivolous lawsuits on the behalf of big record companies while insulating them from the media. It does not exist to protect authors at all, but rather seeks to cause enough mayhem to scare people from trying other distribution mechanisms, by grabbing "rights" that never previously existed for music before the digital age. This is remembered well by anyone who grew up with cassettes or 8 track tapes.

I posted elsewhere in this thread that the MPAA's logic should be used against them to generate a huge award for the theft and performance of the Forest Blog software for a potentially huge number of page views. This model, in which a software author is granted the same rights as a music author, turns software downloading and web page views into something much more insidious than trite torrent sharing, in a legal sense. So I think now is a good time not only to make a legal case against the MPAA, but in fact to start aiming at them with big cannons like RICO and public opinion. Let the record labels do their own dirty work and pay for it individually when their customers get mad.

http://www.patrickrobin.co.uk/default.asp?Display= 5 [patrickrobin.co.uk]
The MPAA claim that it was in use only privatly and they had no advertising. Good to know. If they ever come knocking, I will tell them I watched the movies and home and never sold them to anyone.

The material on the server was a proof of concept awaiting approval to move into production.

The blog was only ever used for testing purposes.

Should we have decided to make the move to production, then we would have paid the 25 Pounds that would have authorized us to run a version of the blog without the logos and links.

ORLY? Note the lack of anything resembling an apology. Also, I must remember that defence when I get a P2P Tax demand from them: "Oh, sure, I copied your memebers' work, but only for testing purposes, and now that I've been caught, I can totally assure you that I intended to buy licensed versions."

Not to mention admission that they used the software, the guy has a very easy court case ahead of him now.

God I would love this.

[blockquote]I didn't post any links to my torrent tracker, nor did I intend its use for anyone but testing internal to my home, the fact that "thepiratebay.org/torrentspy.com/anyothertracker.w hatever" some outside sources managed to access it is purely accidental.[/blockquote]

Just so everybody knows, this story does have a happy ending. The MPAA responded, finally, to his inquiries after a very long wait - by saying essentially that they were only using his software for 'testing' purposes and that the offending site was never made live, advertised on the internet etc.

The Forest Blog Author retorted, in his update to this story, that he doubts they would have been so kind if he 'borrowed' some movies for 'testing' purposes but never distributed them to anybody. He makes a valid point.

The entire trial over those dvd-codec software coders was based on them 'circumventing' a DVD's protection mechanism - it had nothing to do with them actually committing piracy, and were it not for the Digitial Millenium Copyright Act the MPAA would have had no case at all. Essentially they sued and won, establishing for the first time in history that you can purchase intellectual property but essentially not have ownership of the rights to even use it, however you see fit.

Remember that all laws previous to the DMCA were to protect against piracy, (bootlegging, distribution, etc). But now the DMCA actually limits your freedom of use, even for personal use. And it's been proven. If they can do that, why can they abuse fair-use of software they essentially got just by agreeing to it's terms of use?

I say he still send his case to the EFF and hope that they can use something in this as ammunition against the MPAA.

and had completely violated his linkware license by removing all links back to the Forest Blog site, not crediting him in any way. The MPAA blog was using the Forest Blog software, but had completely stripped off his name, and links back to his site.

Stupid blurp. If it doesn't have 100 words, no need to forcefully add them by adding reduntant content.

If you hold the MPAA to the law on this, then it is a tacit acknowledgement that I.P. is a valid thing. You can't have it both ways, Slashdot.

Some call this fighting fire with fire. It's the way the industry works. For example, Linux would be in some serious IP hell from Microsoft if IBM and others didn't have it's army of lawyers ready for a Battle Royale.

If you want the MPAA to hang for this, you must also call for all the movie downloading pirates to hang as well. To not do so would be hypocritical, and having selective morality. It's called "practicing what you preach".

We want to remind the MPAA that "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." If the MPAA wasn't complaining about other people's copyright infringment, then I wouldn't complain about its. But it is, so I will. Get it?

If you want the MPAA to hang for this, you must also call for all the movie downloading pirates to hang as well. To not do so would be hypocritical, and having selective morality. It's called "practicing what you preach".

I've never advocated that movie pirates get away with it, nor am I a movie pirate. I have an TiVo Series 3 (~$800 + Lifetime Transfer), pay for over 120 on cable per month and have a massive DVD collection. All I'm saying is that if they are stealing other peoples IP while going around suin

It's not about whether or not anyone supports or opposes copyright law. The MPAA has claimed in public that copyright infringement is immoral and unethical. Their motivation for doing this is obvious: If they inform the public that some action is illegal, while the public thinks there's nothing wrong with the action morally and ethically, then they risk having the law changed to reflect the public's opinion. Convincing people that they have the moral/ethical high ground ensures that they can continue to benefit from the current legal system, or even lobby successfully for stricter measures in their favour.

Remember their ad campaign:

YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR
YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A HANDBAG
YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A TELEVISION
YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A DVD
DOWNLOADING PIRATED FILMS IS STEALING

The message that they are obviously trying to advance is that copyright infringement is stealing, and therefore is immoral, unethical, and illegal. However, their blatant disregard for the exclusive legal rights of others under copyright law demonstrates the hypocrisy of this claim to the moral and ethical high ground. It shows that even the people behind the MPAA are not themselves convinced that the issue is as simple as "copyright infringement is stealing". How, then, do they expect the rest of the public to be convinced?

The point of the article and what everyone is hollering about is that the MPAA is not practising what they are preaching. This makes it seem as though they will selectively apply the concept of IP to further their own interests.
Besides, the guy had released the thing for free on a Linkware license. How difficult is it to retain backlinks in the source code? Or even pay the mere 25 pounds he was asking for a commercial license?

If you hold the MPAA to the law on this, then it is a tacit acknowledgement that I.P. is a valid thing. You can't have it both ways, Slashdot.

Stop being ridiculous. Slashdot is not one person. Slashdot is a diverse group of users and is entitled to hold a diversity of opinions.

The MPAA, on the other hand, is a single legal entity. It is the MPAA who cannot have it both ways. Yet somehow you seem to think that what's okay for the MPAA is not okay for Slashdot. For you to hold Slashdot to a stricter standard than the MPAA is, quite simply, mind boggling.

What if someone else violated the license and made a stripped version of Epic Movie available, without any references to the original author? How in general can one tell whether one is getting the original movie with intact copyright notices?

What if someone else violated the license and made a stripped version of the code available, without any references to the original author? How in general can one tell whether one is getting the original code with intact copyright notices?

That's what I think whenever I download free music from the Internet: "Must just be a cover band releasing their work for free." I've never seen or heard any copyright notices on Free Internet Music, after all...

what hole have you been hiding in?
RIAA has been claiming damages to the tunes of %750 PER SONG, I have no idea how much MPAA has been claiming.
The point is both about the amount and not about the amount. It's about that the MAFIAA have been claiming that piracy has put such a dent in their God-given right to make tonnes of money, that they should be asking for such disproportionate amount of damage to cover their losses. And YET, when THEY are the ones "stealing" other people's work, all of a sudden, it

You are wrong. Here's why and also how a Good Lawyer can sue and win atleast 1.2 million dollars from MPAA.

First, the fact that MPAA violated his license. According to the DMCA under section 1204 penalties range up to a $500000 fine...

Next, each visitor to MPAA pages could have been a POTENTIAl licensee of the software. This POTENTIAL was lost by the author since no link backs were provided. Assuming a good lawyer subpoenas' MPAA website administrator and gets a total of number of visitors to the page(s) from date of violation till date of verdict, takes a very conservative estimate that atleast 50% of the people visited could have licensed the software, (same calculations that MPAA uses to send take-down notices and suits for damages), the author can easily claim atleast $1.2 million.

Now, once the case goes to court, by that time it has been proven MPAA had violated his copyright. The judge would have no qualms declaring MPAA guility under DMCA. The second play is for more damages outside the $5000000 fine.

If only 1,000 visitors visited the site since the day of violation the fine would stand reduced, however i bet it is more.

A more serious lawyer can pursue it even further and argue that since the MPAA in its role as a guardian of digital copyrights has ITSELF violated the DMCA (thus a case of fence eating the flock), it must be criminally tried and asked to pay a more amount as fine to the poor author.

One sympathetic judge is enough to screw MPAA in this case.I would say, first get a GOOD lawyer.

> First, the fact that MPAA violated his license. According to the DMCA under section 1204 penalties range up to a $500000 fine...

Well, putting aside the rhetoric, this is a simple breach of contract case.

As you correctly point out, Section 1204 of the DMCA does indeed carry the potential for hefty fines. But not for the simple breach of contract action this would be. Section 1204 is the penalty for breaching Sections 1201 and 1202.
See here.. : http://t [loc.gov]